Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 21 days, 2 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #902119 - 09/23/02 06:19 PM (19 years, 8 days ago)

In my opinion, the point isn't that the U.S. only needs the oil...the point is that the rest of the world does as well...and whoever controls the oil..controls the world. (Yes, I realize that is a simple view....but that's the jist of it)


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Rono]
    #902125 - 09/23/02 06:22 PM (19 years, 8 days ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 21 days, 2 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: ]
    #902128 - 09/23/02 06:23 PM (19 years, 8 days ago)

Fair enough...but why has no-one answered the question as to why they were bombed in the first place? I agree that the U.S. needed to get Iraq out of Kuwait...but who is suffering from the intentional bombing of water treatment plants?..Saddam or his Military?...obviously not...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 06:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Rono]
    #902170 - 09/23/02 06:54 PM (19 years, 8 days ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 21 days, 2 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: ]
    #902214 - 09/23/02 07:08 PM (19 years, 8 days ago)

However "effective" that may seem to you...it is still against what was put forth by the Geneva convention. Might as well poison their food supply while we're at it....


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #902335 - 09/23/02 07:55 PM (19 years, 8 days ago)

Rono writes:

...the point isn't that the U.S. only needs the oil... the point is that the rest of the world does as well...

There is no shortage of oil. The entire production of Iraq (the country with the second highest production after Saudi Arabia) has been taken off the market for over a decade, yet every country in the world has been able to continue increasing their annual consumption of oil with no difficulty whatsoever. That's what the whole Kyoto thingy is all about, remember?

... and whoever controls the oil..controls the world.

Yeah, right. That's why Venezuela and Abu Dabi and Kuwait can get other nations to do whatever they want. *sarcasm*

Rono, I have to admire your ability to not let facts influence your convictions. Let's review your claims so far for this thread alone:

* Iraq can't get chlorine -- disproven by the laws of chemistry

* Sanctions kill 500,000 children -- disputed by UNICEF's own report

* Iraq can't fix water treatment plants because the US keeps bombing them -- disproven by the fact that the US hasn't bombed any since the surrender agreement was signed

* Hussein has learned his lesson, and is no longer a threat -- disputed by every ex-member of Iraq's weapons development team and virtually every member of the international UN inspection team except Scott Ritter

* The US "is killing innocents" (note use of present tense) -- unsubstantiated

* Hussein's only violation of the surrender agreement is his refusal to let weapons inspectors have total access -- disproven by the many documented cases of violations unrelated to weapons inspections

* George W Bush is more similar to Hitler than Saddam Hussein is -- refuted by the fact that Bush has neither instituted genocide (vs Saddam's attempts to eliminate the Kurds and Hitler's attempts to eliminate the Jews) nor has he initiated a war of conquest (vs Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and Hitler's conquest of Europe).

Reading your posts is more entertaining than watching an aquarium full of sea monkeys, but not by much. I tire of shooting fish in a barrel.

Later, dude.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 21 days, 2 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #904187 - 09/24/02 11:42 AM (19 years, 7 days ago)

Pinky, your ability to twist the facts is interesting...

First things first...I never said that there was a shortage of oil..ever. But oil production is at it's peak right now...everyone seems to think this except you. Oil is at it's peak (Pay special attention to the graphs) Once again, you only scratch the surface with your argument without digging deeper.

Sanctions kill 500,000 children -- disputed by UNICEF's own report "disputed"?...yet many other sources say it is so...including the U.N...but if Unicef says they aren't sure then I guess it never happened. My mistake.

Hussein has learned his lesson, and is no longer a threat -- disputed by every ex-member of Iraq's weapons development team and virtually every member of the international UN inspection team except Scott Ritter
Oh please...do YOU have any sources of this? Scott Ritter's comments are easy to find, yet I can't find ONE backing your claims. "Virtually every member"...uh huh.

The US "is killing innocents" (note use of present tense) -- unsubstantiated What would you call the bombing of a wedding?...Nevermind, those wedding guests had it coming to them. (I won't even bring up the bombing of Canadian soldiers...oops...too late) (yes I know this was in Afghanistan...but it's foreshadow to what's about to happen in Iraq. More civilians getting slaughtered needlessly)

* Hussein's only violation of the surrender agreement is his refusal to let weapons inspectors have total access -- disproven by the many documented cases of violations unrelated to weapons inspections Where have I said that was his only infraction??? You are making up arguments as you go along...I brought up the weapons inspectors issue, because that seems to be the one that everyone is worried about...and he agreed to let them in, so what's the problem?

George W Bush is more similar to Hitler than Saddam Hussein is -- refuted by the fact that Bush has neither instituted genocide (vs Saddam's attempts to eliminate the Kurds and Hitler's attempts to eliminate the Jews) nor has he initiated a war of conquest (vs Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and Hitler's conquest of Europe). I gotta admit..This one made me chuckle. When saddam was "eliminating" the kurds...who do you think was backing him at the time? the U.S. when the kurds were allegedly gassed, who didn't find ANY evidence of such an act?...the U.S. When Saddam suddenly turned "rogue"..who was the country the brought up the gassing of kurds, despite they didn't have any "evidence"..the U.S. Which country recently tried to implement the "TIPS" program?which would have essentially turned the U.S. into a VERY Nazi like state...the U.S. Although the U.S. has not been as open about their war of conquest...it's more of a financial war of conquest..they have been taking control of the middle east. I will not say that Saddam Hussein is a saint..or even a good man for that matter, but don't pretend that Bush is either. Pinky even you said that if Iraq met all the conditions of the U.S., you wouldn't be surprised to find out he was killed my the CIA or the Mossad...does this sound like the actions of a reasonable country?

As you were...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/24/02 11:50 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #904553 - 09/24/02 02:58 PM (19 years, 7 days ago)

Rono writes:

Pinky, your ability to twist the facts is interesting...

And your ability to ignore them is amusing.

First things first...I never said that there was a shortage of oil..ever.

You don't obtain power by "controlling" one or even several sources of supply of a commodity that is readily available from many other sources. You said that oil is power and whoever controls oil controls the world, implying in this context that whoever controls IRAQ's oilfields controls the world. I pointed out that if Iraq never exported another drop of oil for a long long time to come, it would make no difference because dozens of other oil-producing countries would happily take up the slack.

Ii}But oil production is at it's peak right now...everyone seems to think this except you.

No one seems to think this except you and the guy at that site you linked. If you had actually READ his article rather than just looking at the title you would see that even HE doesn't say there is a SHORTAGE of oil. You haven't been around long enough to know this, but we have heard this lament before -- in the Seventies, in the Eighties, in the Nineties. Yet checking only the KNOWN oil reserve estimates every 5 years from 1960 to present shows an ever-increasing number. Can this go on forever? Nope. But today and for at least a couple of decades (AT LEAST... and probably longer) every nation on the planet can meet its projected needs for oil with no difficulty. SHOULD they consume as much oil? Nope. But the point is, they CAN.

disputed by UNICEF's own report "disputed"?...yet many other sources say it is so...including the U.N...but if Unicef says they aren't sure then I guess it never happened. My mistake.

I suggest you READ the report. It is on the UN website. For just once, accept the possibility -- no, wait, "accept is the wrong word; discover it for yourself -- that a credible report from a credible source might actually disprove one of your pet theories and READ the freakin' report. I dare you.

...yet many other sources say it is so...

And many other sources say Elvis is still alive. Still other sources say humans are anally probed by aliens on a regular basis.

...including the U.N...but if Unicef says they aren't sure then I guess it never happened.

As for the many other souces "including the U.N.", all of them extrapolated (despite warnings from the authors of the report that it was incorrect to do so) their own figures from the UNICEF report I referenced. And you ARE aware that UNICEF is a UN organization, aren't you?

Oh please...do YOU have any sources of this?

As you so often whine, I am not ALWAYS going to spoonfeed you. Go to the UN website yourself and read some of the reports the UN inspection teams filed. There have been other recent posts in this forum that have said the same thing. Bush said so in his speech, and not a single country (except Iraq, of course) disputed him. Summarized reports of the inspections teams were widely reported in the international media in the mid-Nineties. The theme, time and time again, was that Iraq was doing everything possible to limit access, and to make it impossible for the inspectors to fulfill their mandate. Several (not all of them American... some were French and at least one was Dutch if I recall correctly) quit in disgust long before 1998, not because they believed there was nothing to find but because they stated publicly and repeatedly that without the necessary access there was literally no point in their being there. Did you sleep through all this publicity or do you just have a selective memory?

Scott Ritter's comments are easy to find....

And it is just as easy to find his earlier comments, when he was as strong in his protests as all the others. But he then had a rather abrupt and somewhat startling conversion. It has been said that his change in stance coincided with a sudden increase in his net worth.

Note that the ones who really KNOW the true state of affairs, the defectors involved in Hussein's weapons program, unanimously declare that Hussein IS rebuilding his stocks of WMD.

yes I know this was in Afghanistan...

Try to stick to the topic. This thread is not discussing Afghanistan or Argentina or Antarctica. It is discussing Iraq. Your claim clearly implies that the US IS killing innocents in Iraq. This is unsubstantiated.

Where have I said that was his only infraction???

When you so smugly proclaimed "Iraq has said they will let weapons inspectors in...what more do you want?" The implication is that if Saddam SAYS they will let inspectors enter the country again, that's all he has to do. What more do I want, Rono? I want him to abide by EVERY condition he agreed to when he signed the surrender agreement. Guess what -- so does your beloved UN.

...and he agreed to let them in, so what's the problem?

He has already demonstrated that this is pretty much ALL he will do -- let them in. He then makes it impossible for them to do their job. THAT'S the problem.

When saddam was "eliminating" the kurds...who do you think was backing him at the time?

You have an outstanding ability to dodge what is relevant. The point is not who knew or didn't know he was killing them, nor who believed or didn't believe he was killing them, the point is HE KILLED THEM. Note that when reports of Hitler's "final solution" began to surface, there was worldwide disbelief that lasted for a VERY long time -- to the present day, in fact, for many individuals. As for "who was BACKING him", are you claiming that the US directed Hussein to kill Kurds?

But all of the above is irrelevant anyway, because it was not GEORGE W. BUSH who was in power at the time Hussein was killing the Kurds (except the ones he is killing today, of course), and your comparison was between George W. Bush and Hitler and Saddam Hussein, NOT between the US and Hitler. You deliberately specified George W. Bush, remember?

Which country recently tried to implement the "TIPS" program?which would have essentially turned the U.S. into a VERY Nazi like state...the U.S.

Says you. You obviously haven't the faintest conception of what kind of oppression was rampant in Nazi Germany. This blatant inflation, this equating of a VOLUNTARY informant program to the wholesale oppression, kidnapping, torture, and murder (not to mention the attempted elimination of an entire ethnic group) that was daily reality in Nazi Germany is so ridiculous it would be laughable if the subject matter weren't so serious. Don't you realize that such asinine comparisons undermine any slight credibility you might have? How can anyone take you seriously? "...essentially turned the U.S. into a VERY Nazi like state" my ass.

Although the U.S. has not been as open about their war of conquest...it's more of a financial war of conquest..

Again, this conflation of two unrelated concepts. There is an enormous difference between buying the products of a country on the open market at a price which is agreed upon by both parties and invading a country with tanks; killing, raping, torturing, looting, and destroying as you go. The two are not even REMOTELY comparable.

...they have been taking control of the middle east.

Apart from Israel, (whom the US quite obviously has no control over whatsoever... see the current situation with Sharon's alleged excesses) name a single middle eastern country the US has "taken control" of. Just one. Any one will do. Hell, the freakin' Saudis won't even let the US use their country as a staging area, and the US SAVED THEIR FREAKIN' ASSES in 1991!

I will not say that Saddam Hussein is a saint..or even a good man for that matter, but don't pretend that Bush is either.

In my opinion, Bush is an idiot. But he is nowhere even CLOSE to Hitler. Not even on the same page. Anyone who honestly believes he is Hitlerian is braindead.

Pinky even you said that if Iraq met all the conditions of the U.S., you wouldn't be surprised to find out he was killed my the CIA or the Mossad...does this sound like the actions of a reasonable country?

To anyone who thinks about it for more than a minute or so, rather than devastate entire nations by waging "conventional warfare" (read "acceptable to the UN rules and regulations"), clearly it is much more reasonable to assassinate the asshole who is the problem. Saves a hell of a lot of "collateral casualties", doesn't it? There are some people who deserve to be assassinated. Hussein is one. Hitler was another. The world would have been saved immeasurable grief if one of the many assassination attempts directed at Adolf Hitler had succeeded. Do you dispute this?

Hussein deserves death for what he has done already, even if he does nothing for the rest of his life other than kiss babies and munch halvah.

As a final note, you claim there were "maybe 200 people" killed during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and you call that a "generous estimate". I will leave that claim untouched, though it is the lowest number I have seen so far. What about how many were kidnapped, tortured, killed, and dumped in mass graves during the Iraqi OCCUPATION of Kuwait? Much different story. Much higher numbers. But of course you would not have bothered to research this, since it doesn't fit your agenda of reflexively ranting against anything and everything the Great Satan does.

"Open-minded" my ass.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 21 days, 2 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #904693 - 09/24/02 03:35 PM (19 years, 7 days ago)

Pinky...I can not get over your undeniable talent for putting words in my mouth and taking statements out of context.

In reply to:

You said that oil is power and whoever controls oil controls the world, implying in this context that whoever controls IRAQ's oilfields controls the world.


Did I specify only IRAQ's oil?...no, I didn't.

In reply to:

No one seems to think this except you and the guy at that site you linked. If you had actually READ his article rather than just looking at the title you would see that even HE doesn't say there is a SHORTAGE of oil.


AGAIN...PLEASE STATE WHERE I (or anyone for that matter) SAID THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF OIL???

In reply to:

As you so often whine, I am not ALWAYS going to spoonfeed you


Then perhaps you would be so kind as to "spoonfeed" me this info or tell me where to look? Because for some reason I can't find anything to support your statement.
In reply to:

It has been said that his change in stance coincided with a sudden increase in his net worth


It's only fair if you make me post my sources contantly, that I ask to see yours...am I wrong for thinking this?

In reply to:

To anyone who thinks about it for more than a minute or so, rather than devastate entire nations by waging "conventional warfare" (read "acceptable to the UN rules and regulations"), clearly it is much more reasonable to assassinate the asshole who is the problem. Saves a hell of a lot of "collateral casualties", doesn't it?


That could be taken in more than one way...

In reply to:

As a final note, you claim there were "maybe 200 people" killed during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and you call that a "generous estimate". I will leave that claim untouched, though it is the lowest number I have seen so far. What about how many were kidnapped, tortured, killed, and dumped in mass graves during the Iraqi OCCUPATION of Kuwait?


What about the stories of mass graves in Afghanistan?...

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth to make your argument seem stronger, and I rarely ask for a source unless I can't find one...

P.S. as for the Bush / Hitler comaprison?....Bush's similarity to Hitler is his disdain for all norms of international law and relations, and his insistence on using war for the sole purpose of obtaining the selfish goals of his gang of thugs at the expense of the destruction of understandings and laws between nations that have taken hundreds of years to create.




--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/24/02 03:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #905229 - 09/24/02 07:01 PM (19 years, 7 days ago)

Rono writes:

Did I specify only IRAQ's oil?...no, I didn't.

AGAIN...PLEASE STATE WHERE I (or anyone for that matter) SAID THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF OIL???

Sigh. Let's review, shall we? Here is how we got started on the "oil as a motive for assassinating Hussein" supposition:

[Rono - "Thank you for your opinion, now I have to ask you why you think the U.S. would assassinate Hussein even after he (hypothetically) met their conditions? What would be their reasoning? Would it be fair to say that control of the regions oil would be enough reason?"

I responded no, it would not be reason enough, because the US has no NEED to control "the region's oil" -- it has no difficulty obtaining all the oil it requires. I didn't even bother to point out to you that controlling Iraq's oil is a very far cry from controlling "the region's" oil. The region in question consists of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and half a dozen other oil-producing countries. I let you slide on that one.

Rono's response: "In my opinion, the point isn't that the U.S. only needs the oil...the point is that the rest of the world does as well...and whoever controls the oil..controls the world. (Yes, I realize that is a simple view....but that's the jist of it)"

Now, what other implication of this statement be but that the US government believes that by assassinating Hussein, it will gain control of Iraq's oil, thereby somehow gaining power over the rest of the world? Note that this discussion is not about MONOPOLIZING the entire supply of the world's oil, or even about monopolizing "the region's" oil, it is SPECIFICALLY (by your own initial statement) about somehow seizing IRAQ'S oil through the tactic of assassinating Saddam Hussein. Anyway, my reply was:

"There is no shortage of oil. The entire production of Iraq (the country with the second highest production after Saudi Arabia) has been taken off the market for over a decade, yet every country in the world has been able to continue increasing their annual consumption of oil with no difficulty whatsoever."

In other words, even if the US annexed Iraq, and reopened the oil fields, there is no incentive for "the rest of the world" to buy their oil from the new US/Iraq 51st state rather than to continue to buy their oil from the same suppliers they have been since 1991. How can one increase one's "control" over someone else by being just one of many suppliers of a readily obtained commodity?

Rono's response: "First things first...I never said that there was a shortage of oil..ever."

My response -- "You don't obtain power by "controlling" one or even several sources of supply of a commodity that is readily available from many other sources. You said that oil is power and whoever controls oil controls the world, implying in this context that whoever controls IRAQ's oilfields controls the world. I pointed out that if Iraq never exported another drop of oil for a long long time to come, it would make no difference because dozens of other oil-producing countries would happily take up the slack."

Rono's response: "Did I specify only IRAQ's oil?...no, I didn't."

Look -- you asked me if gaining control over Iraq's oil was sufficient motive for the assassination of Hussein. I said no it wasn't, and patiently explained in detail precisely WHY it wasn't, that there were other more plausible motives. I realize that to you, every bad thing in the world that happens is somehow, in some way, connected to oil, but the majority of the world does not share your monomania.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 21 days, 2 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #905236 - 09/24/02 07:04 PM (19 years, 7 days ago)

That seemed like an awfully long post to show that I never said there was an oil shortage...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #905238 - 09/24/02 07:04 PM (19 years, 7 days ago)

In reply to:

Oh please...do YOU have any sources of this? Scott Ritter's comments are easy to find, yet I can't find ONE backing your claims. "Virtually every member"...uh huh.




Here you go....
BAGHDAD'S OLD TRICKS

Iraq's Faux Capitulation
A former weapons inspector explains why Saddam is still a menace.

BY RICHARD O. SPERTZEL
Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

When Iraq announced last week that it would allow inspectors to return without conditions, many diplomats and the press jumped with glee. At last, Iraq, responding to pressure, had a miraculous change of heart. China, Russia, France and many Arab nations quickly asserted that no new Security Council resolution would be necessary. All studiously ignored the statement's fine print, which was reinforced in the lengthy, more formal notification to the United Nations later in the week.

Iraq stipulated that inspectors had to respect the country's dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also stipulated that the U.N. had to apply the rules governing elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to Israel as well. If that wasn't enough condition-setting, Saddam Hussein then came back to add that all conditions previously negotiated with the U.N. had to apply, notably the hamstringing agreement by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that called for prior notification and accompaniment of inspectors by diplomats to "sensitive" sites. This is progress?

Given 24 hours notification, any country could hide even "smoking gun" evidence of a biological weapons program. Such inspections are designed for failure.





From its inception in the 1970s, Iraq's biological weapons program included both military and terrorist applications, the latter part of which were not actively pursued by United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors. The biological weapons program, founded and funded by Iraq's intelligence service with some limited technical input from the Ministry of Defense, has remained under the intelligence agency's control since 1987.
The existence of the biological weapons program was categorically denied and actively concealed from UNSCOM until July 1995. And the pattern of denial and concealment continued right through the termination of inspections by Iraq in December 1998. Fraudulent statements, false and forged documents, misrepresentation of the roles of people and facilities, and other acts of deception were the norm. The extent and objectives of Iraq's biological weapons program have never been disclosed.

Iraq's multiple so-called "Full, Final, and Complete Declarations" that it had disclosed everything about its prohibited biological weapons program have never been accurate or complete. Nothing appears to have changed Iraq's willingness to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. Nor does it appear, in spite of the lip service given to getting inspectors back into Iraq, that there has been any significant change in the support that an inspection regime might expect from U.N. Security Council members. The existing resolutions also existed in 1997 and 1998 and failed to get Iraq's full cooperation, in part thanks to Russia's and France's support for whatever Iraq wanted.

Even while UNSCOM inspectors were still operating, Iraq was constantly trying to restrict our activities, curb our access and require notification of inspections, even to monitored sites. What, in Iraq's latest pronouncement regarding the return of inspectors, makes countries such as France and Russia believe that there is no need for a stronger resolution with discrete dates for Iraq to accomplish a true disarmament and specific action for failure to comply?

None of this should reflect negatively on the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, the successor to UNSCOM. Its success or failure depends too much on uncontrollable elements. What will be the conditions under which the inspectors return? Iraq wants to retain all the obstacles that it had wrangled out of the U.N. through the series of "crises" that it had instigated during UNSCOM's tenure--a clear obstacle to success.

What support will the inspection regime have, given Iraq's recalcitrance and what appears to be a lack of strong, unanimous support in the Security Council? Will Iraq truly cooperate and reveal or destroy all its biological weapons activity? Will it, on readmitting inspectors, behave differently this time? Based on the findings of broad panels of international experts including representatives of all Security Council members, a first indication of cooperation could be a significant further verifiable disclosure by Iraq in all weapons of mass destruction areas. Iraq's continued denial of possession of any weapons of mass destruction may be semantic hairsplitting: no weapons, but what about programs to produce them?





It will take a shift in the attitude of the Iraqi ruling regime before any elimination of weapons of mass destruction programs will be possible. The current charade being carried out on the U.N. stage by Iraq and its surrogates reflects no desire for true disarmament but only steps to lifting sanctions. How this change in attitude comes about may tell much about the U.N.'s effectiveness and its future relevance.
Should Iraq be allowed to retain its biological weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction programs) it will remain a menace not only to its neighbors, but to the world at large because of the concomitant instability it would create in the region. The Gulf states would need to judge all their actions in light of the Iraqi threat. Saddam's regime is unpredictable. It is already openly supplying support to Palestinian suicide bombers. Iraq might try using weapons of mass destruction against Israel, with who knows what repercussions.

The world's press in recent weeks has cited the opposition of most nations in the Middle East and Europe to any action against Iraq. It is claimed that Iraq is weaker than it was a decade ago, and does not pose any immediate and significant threat. But this does not seem to address the terrorist threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. One would think that after Sept. 11, a more realistic appraisal of Iraq's capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction as terrorist weapons would be forthcoming. Iraq's biological weapons program from its inception included a terrorist component. Such terrorism applications would undoubtedly evolve to meet changing situations and can be expected to be retained even after the development of its nuclear capability.





The threat that Iraq's biological weapons program poses as a bioterrorist weapon to any of its perceived enemies is enormous. While much attention is focused on bioterrorism against people, the economic devastation that could be wreaked on agriculture could be far greater in the long term. For the U.S. at home and abroad, the greatest danger from Iraq's weapons development remains the potential for its use in terrorism, whether by Iraq directly or through support to terrorist organizations.
How certain are we that the weapons-grade anthrax spores contained in the letters sent to various U.S. addresses last October were not "Made in Baghdad"? Should Iraq be involved with using its biological weapons expertise in bioterrorist activities, it may be impossible to find a "smoking gun." Biological weapons agents are unlikely to have a signature that will definitively pinpoint a laboratory or a country as the origin. As long as Iraq does not change its attitude, as long as it continues trying to acquire and retaining weapons of mass destruction, its support for terrorism is a major threat to the world. Too bad that the diplomats are unable or unwilling to recognize this danger.

Mr. Spertzel was the United Nations' chief biological weapons inspector in Iraq from 1994 to 1998.
__________________________________
and the link.....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002327


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #905242 - 09/24/02 07:05 PM (19 years, 7 days ago)

Rono writes:

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to "spoonfeed" me this info or tell me where to look? Because for some reason I can't find anything to support your statement.

You DO know how to work a search engine, don't you? I just typed "weapons Iraq UN reports" into google and these were just some of what I found on the first page alone:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/9803/weapon.search/game/ this is a timeline of the UN weapons inspection program from its inception till 1997. It's a good general overview. Not a lot of detail, but a good starting point.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraq-wmd.cfm this is a more detailed and specific chronology of events in Iraq's weapons development post 1991

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/index.html#UNSCOM%20Reports%20and%20other%20documents - here is a list of publicized UN reports re the inspections programs. Even though they are worded in the typical bland diplomat-speak of most UN documents, the frustration of the authors of the reports is obvious.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm a history of the obstructions and outright lies told to the IAEA inspectors

There's tons more, but why should I list them? You won't read them anyway. They report the findings of the people who actually attempted to carry out the inspections, and the statements of IRAQI PARTICIPANTS in Iraq's ongoing post-1991 weapons development programs, but quite obviously those people are lying. *sarcasm* Note that the head of the UNSCOM team wasn't American, but Swedish.

It's only fair if you make me post my sources contantly, that I ask to see yours...am I wrong for thinking this?

I honestly can't remember where I saw this allegation. I do know it was in more than one place, possibly even on one of the conspiracy websites I keep getting directed to by contributors to this forum. I'm not going to bother doing a search for it right now because I am not personally convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ritter is now in the pay of Iraq. Do I think it possible he is? Certainly! Let's face it, there are many people in the world who would do far worse than declare Hussein has no WMD capability if they were given a few million bucks. Do I think it likely? What I personally believe is irrelevant. Maybe it can be proven he was bribed, maybe it can't. The point is, there is no more reason to believe the allegations that Ritter was bribed to change his tune than there is to believe the allegations that the US administration deliberately allowed the attacks of September 11, 2001 to take place.

What about the stories of mass graves in Afghanistan?...

Are you even remotely capable of staying on topic? This discussion is about IRAQ. You have aired your views of Afghanistan in previous threads, and doubtless you will do so again. If you want to wander all over the map have the courtesy to open a separate thread. Open one on Viet Nam while you're at it, if you want me to post things more in line with your worldview.

Bush's similarity to Hitler is his disdain for all norms of international law and relations, and his insistence on using war for the sole purpose of obtaining the selfish goals of his gang of thugs at the expense of the destruction of understandings and laws between nations that have taken hundreds of years to create.

Saddam Hussein's similarity to Hitler is his disdain for all norms of international law and relations, and his insistence on using war for the sole purpose of obtaining the selfish goals of his gang of thugs at the expense of the destruction of understandings and laws between nations that have taken hundreds of years to create.

I leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves which of those statements is more accurate.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (09/24/02 07:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 21 days, 2 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #905273 - 09/24/02 07:24 PM (19 years, 7 days ago)

1) Richard Butler, UNSCOM director

(a) In late 1997, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler announced that ?significant progress? had been made in reducing Iraq?s chemical weapons capabilities. He reported UNSCOM had successfully tracked 817 of 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles. (cited in Zunes 8-20-2002)

(b) In 1991, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military might was greatly reduced. UNSCOM Chief Richard Butler said in July 1998, ?if Iraqi disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.? (cited in Epic)

(2) Scott Ritter, a former UN chief weapons inspector

(a) Ex-weapons inspector and former marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter wrote in the Guardian on October 19, 2001 ?Under the most stringent on-site inspection regime in the history of arms control, Iraq's biological weapons programmes were dismantled, destroyed or rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice inspections. The major biological weapons production facility -- al Hakum, which was responsible for producing Iraq's anthrax -- was blown up by high explosive charges and all its equipment destroyed. Other biological facilities met the same fate if it was found that they had, at any time, been used for research and development of biological weapons...No evidence of anthrax or any other biological agent was discovered.? (cited in Everest 2001)

(b) In a speech to an attentive audience at the Suffolk Law School building in downtown Boston, former UN chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, explained in detail how he and his colleagues had cross-referenced weapons-making materials found in Iraq with sales records from other countries to ensure that at least 90% of Iraq?s weapons had been destroyed or dismantled. He stated that he believes that a good portion of the remaining 10% was destroyed during the Gulf War, leaving only a small fraction unaccounted for. He also said that he had seen no credible evidence to substantiate the Bush?s administration?s claims and scoffed at its assertion that officials had ?secret? evidence ? ?If the administration had such secret evidence, we'd be at war in Iraq right now. We wouldn't be talking about it. It would be a fait accompli.? (cited in Pitt 7-24-2002; Ritter explained this again in a July op?ed piece ? Ritter 7-30-2002)

(c) Ex-weapons inspector and former marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter (3/9/00) wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed, ??from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has in fact been disarmed... The chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range ballistic missile programs that were a real threat in 1991 had, by 1998, been destroyed or rendered harmless.? (cited from Epic n.d., Stop the war against Iraq.org n.d.)

(d) In an op-ed piece published in the July 20 edition of the Boston Globe, Ritter wrote: ?While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.? (Ritter 7-20-2002)

(3) Committee under the UN Security Council

(a) In 1999, a committee under the UN Security Council concluded that Iraq?s primary biological weapons facility ?had been destroyed and rendered harmless.? (cited in Pilger 4-5-2002)

(b) Ex-weapons inspector and former marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter argued in the Christian Science Monitor that the hawks? main informant, Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, was untrustworthy. The UN had stopped using him as an informant ?once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear.? Ritter explained: ?I spent more than six years investigating the organizations the defector claimed to work for, and although elements of his story ring true, the details used to embellish his tale on weapons of mass destruction are impossible to pin down or, in some cases, just plain wrong.? (Ritter 1-28-2002; see also Fisk 2-17-2002; Ritter 3-13-2002)

(4) International Atomic Energy agency

(a) In January of 2002, the International Atomic Energy agency sent inspectors into Iraq and found no evidence of nuclear weapons. (Wanniski 2-20-2002; Pilger 4-5-2002)

Unnamed military officials.

01. MSNBC reported on August 27 2002, ?Military officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence that Iraq has produced or obtained any nuclear fuel, clashing with the Bush administration?s official statements that Saddam Hussein is close to developing a nuclear weapon.? (Miklaszewski 8-27-2002)

Scott Ritter, a former UN chief weapons inspector.
?The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.? (cited in Pitt 7-24-2002)

Outgoing Defense Secretary, William Cohen...
He informed incoming President George Bush in January: ?Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.? (Halliday and von Sponneck 11-29-2001)






--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Oil Fields Have Been Secured pattern 420 3 04/04/03 08:25 PM
by RadioActiveSlug
* Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist wingnutx 1,027 2 01/29/14 06:52 AM
by theindianrepublic
* Israeli anti RPG system blocked by US army downforpot 2,866 16 09/10/06 03:06 PM
by downforpot
* 500,000 iraqi children dead because of US sanctions. Albright: "The Price Is Worth It"...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58 8,845 79 11/09/05 07:42 AM
by GazzBut
* Death by sanctions. Baby_Hitler 770 15 05/12/04 08:45 PM
by kaiowas
* Bush signs Sudan sanctions bill st0nedphucker 730 0 12/24/04 11:59 AM
by st0nedphucker
* High-Ranking Army Officer - Missile Hit Pentagon
( 1 2 3 all )
usefulidiot 4,557 50 08/29/05 06:55 PM
by Los_Pepes
* U.S. Army Launches Bids for Iraq Energy Work wingnutx 623 7 09/14/03 10:22 AM
by yogaflame

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,869 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.